Arnaments   and   the      IText  Y/ar 

by 

John  W,   Poster 


Hrmamcnte  anC)  tbe  '*1Rext  XllHar. 


The  Opening  Address  at  the 
Twelfth  Annual  Confer- 
ence ON  International  Arbi- 
tration, HELD  AT  MOHONK 
Lake,    N.   Y.,    May   30,   1906. 


BY 

JOHN  W./  FOSTER, 

President  of  the  Conference. 


Note. — The  opening  address  of  the  President 
of  the  recent  Mohonk  Conference  on  Inter- 
national Arbitration  has  occasioned  considerable 
comment.  Owing  to  its  imperfect  publication  in 
the  press,  some  of  the  comments  have  been 
misleading.  For  this  reason,  and  because  of  the 
desire  expressed  by  many  friends  for  its  full 
publication,  it  is  herewith  reproduced. 


■5¥ASHiNOTbls.;D!'G.,   *  »'»>  ,  /       'I  \  : 
June,  igo6. 


•        < 
C  t 


r  ^1 


TWELFTH  ANNUAL   MOHONK  CONFERENCE 

ON 

INTERNATIONAL   ARBITRATION. 


Opening  Address  by  President  John  W.  Foster. 


^  lyADIKS  AND   GENTI^EMEN  : 

"^     We  congratulate  ourselves  on  the  assembling  of  the 
^*  twelfth  annual  Conference  on  International  Arbitration 
^today  with  the  reign  of  peace  among  all  the  nations 
^\  of  the  earth.     At  former  meetings  there  have  been  in 
^progress  the  Japanese-Chinese  and  the  Spanish-Amer- 
'    ican  wars,  the   Philippine  insurrection,  the  Boer  war, 
>  the  Boxer  outbreak  in  China,  the  British  expedition  to 
Tibet,  and  the  great  Russo-Japanese  war.     The  temple 
^  of  Janus  now  stands  closed.     Let  us  hope  its  votaries 
^  may  have  no  occasion  to  open  it  in  our  day. 
jy.       The   hopeful   promise   now    is,    not   only   that   peace 
reigns,    but   that   the   nations    are    striving   to   preserve 
peace.     The  third  meeting  of  the  American  States  is 
about  to  occur  at  Rio  de  Janeiro  to  concert  measures 
for  greater  harmony  in  their  work  of  developing  com- 
merce,   industry,    intelligence    and    justice.      And    it    is 
proposed  that  this  assembly  in  the  Western  Hemisphere 
shall   be   followed   soon   by  another   Conference  of   all 


the  nations  of  the  world  at  The  Hague  in  the  interest 
of  peace  and  humanity.  The  gratifying  feature  of 
this  second  Conference  in  Europe  is  that  it  is  responded 
to  with  alacrity  by  all  the  governments,  in  striking 
contrast  with  the  hesitation  and  jealousy  which  marked 
the  first  convocation.  Another  interesting  feature  is 
that  while  twenty-six  governments  were  represented 
at  the  Conference  of  1899,  forty-'.seven  have  been 
invited  to  participate  in  the  second  Peace  Conference, 
including  all  the  American  States  and  Ethiopia.  It 
wall  be  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  human  race 
when  all  the  independent  nations  have  come  together 
to  confer  on  their  mutual  interests.  Verily  the  world 
is  moving  on  towards  the  era  of  peace  and  good  will 
among  men. 

With  this  inspiring  picture  before  us,  I  regret  to 
have  to  direct  your  attention  to  another  phase  of  the 
coming  World's  Congress  which  is  not  so  encouraging. 
The  main  object  of  the  first  Hague  Conference  was 
expressly  set  forth  in  the  program  to  be  the  limitation 
of  the  armaments  of  the  nations.  Of  late  the  Em- 
peror of  Russia  has  been  the  subject  of  severe  criticism, 
and  even  of  malediction.  I  am  pleased  to  say  that 
too  much  praise  cannot  be  bestowed  upon  his  rescript 
convoking  the  Conference  of  1899.  No  more  forcible 
statement  has  ever  been  published  of  the  economic 
evils  of  war  and  of  the  unwisdom  and  hurtful  effects 
of  the  maintenance  of  the  vast  armies  and  navies  of 
the  great  powers  of  Europe.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
the  Czar  at  that  time  sincerely  desired  that  a  limita- 
tion might  be  placed  upon  these  extravagant  and 
dangerous  expenditures,  but  the  Conference  did  not 
have    the    courage    or    the    will    to    meet    this    mighty 


issue.  We  have  the  authority  of  one  of  the  prominent  mem- 
bers of  that  body,  Baron  d'Estournelles  de  Constant, 
for  the  statement  made  recently  in  the  French  Senate, 
that   the    Conference    in    "its    first   purpose    had    failed. 

*  *  *  But  all  was  not  lost.  *  *  *  From  fear 
of  offending  public  opinion  and  lest  it  end  in  complete 
failure,  the  permanent  arbitration  court  was  created, 
and  in  spite  of  the  tacit  dislike  which  at  first  crippled 
it,  it  has  begini  to  live.  *  *  *  On  the  initiative  of 
President  Roosevelt,  the  Hague  Court,  boycotted  by 
Europe,  was  set  on  its  feet  and  saved." 

Happily  the  boycott  of  Europe  did  not  extend  to 
America,  and  M.  de  Constant  justly  gives  the  credit 
to  President  Roosevelt  for  having  saved  the  Confer- 
ence from  complete  failure.  However  great  may  be 
the  other  services  of  our  President  to  his  country  and 
mankind,  I  believe  that  history  will  record  this  act 
as  his  worthiest  claim  to  lasting  fame. 

The  first  call  for  the  second  Peace  Conference  was 
issued  during  the  progress  of  the  Russo-Japanese  war 
by  President  Roosevelt,  but  after  its  close  the  Em- 
peror of  Russia  asked  and  was  accorded  the  privilege 
of  sending  out  the  formal  convocation.  The  discourag- 
ing feature  of  it  to  which  I  have  alluded  is  that  in 
tlie  program  of  subjects  to  be  considered  the  limita- 
tion of  armaments  has  not  been  included.  It  was 
hardly  to  be  expected  that  this  measure  would  be  sug- 
gested by  the  power  whose  armies  so  recently  had  been 
driven  from  the  field  and  its  navy  annihilated.  But 
it  is  of  equal  importance  with  the  general  acceptance 
of  the  principle  of  arbitration  that  some  measure  shall 
be  adopted  to  put  a  stop  to  this  ever  increasing  com- 
petition of  the  great  powers  in  the  enlargement  of  their 


standing  armies  and  navies.  It  is  a  mockery  of 
sincerity  and  consistency  to  solemnly  enter  into  treaty 
compacts  for  the  settlement  of  international  disputes 
by  peaceful  arbitration,  while  the  high  contracting 
parties  continue  to  strain  to  the  utmost  their  taxing 
capacity  and  their  credit  in  preparations  for  war. 

I  recognize  that  the  limitation  of  armaments  is 
encompassed  with  many  difficulties,  but  it  is  no  more 
impossible  of  realization  than  a  general  arbitration 
treaty  seemed  a  few  years  ago.  Nor  are  we  without 
examples  to  show  that  it  is  possible  of  practical  ap- 
plication. The  two  southernmost  republics  of  this 
hemisphere  for  a  generation  or  more  regarded  each 
other  as  natural  enemies,  and  they  taxed  their  people 
to  the  stretch  of  endurance  to  keep  their  armies  and 
navies  on  a  war  footing.  But  finally,  realizing  the 
folly  and  wickedness  of  such  a  policy,  they  recently 
entered  into  a  treaty  of  amity  and  disarmament,  they 
have  reduced  their  military  forces  to  police  necessities, 
and  sold  their  battleships  and  cruisers,  or  converted 
them  into  merchant  vessels.  Thus  Chile  and  Argentina 
by  disarmament  guarantee  each  other's  peace  and 
autonomy.  At  the  close  of  the  war  of  1812  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  agreed  to  a  disarmament  of 
their  large  naval  establishments  on  the  Great  Lakes, 
where  fierce  conflicts  had  taken  place.  A  treaty  fixed 
the  limit  of  their  armed  vessels  on  those  extensive 
internal  seas,  and  for  nearly  a  century  we  and  our 
Canadian  neighbors  have  lived  in  peace,  and  the  im- 
mense commercial  shipping  of  those  waters  has  felt 
no  need  of  vessels  of  war  to  protect  it.  What  the 
Argentine    and    Chilean    republics    and    the    two    great 


Anglo-Saxon  nations  have  done  is  feasible  for  all  the 
nations  soon  to  assemble  at  The  Hague. 

The  subject  which  Russia  did  not  feel  warranted  in 
suggesting,  I  am  confident  will  be  inserted  in  the 
program.  In  fact  it  has  already  been  anticipated  by 
President  Roosevelt,  by  the  reference  he  made  in  his 
last  annual  message  to  "the  limitation  of  the  armed 
forces  on  land  and  sea,  and  of  military  budgets"  as 
one  of  the  matters  of  business  undisposed  of  in  1899 
and  desirable  to  be  considered  in  the  new  Conference. 
The  omission  has  also  attracted  the  attention  of  the 
British  government,  and  during  the  present  month  a 
resolution  has  been  adopted  by  the  House  of  Commons 
calling  for  the  inclusion  of  the  question. 

I  earnestly  hope  our  Government  will  follow  up  the 
indication  made  in  the  message  of  the  President,  and  that 
its  delegates  to  The  Hague  will  take  the  lead  in  bring- 
ing about  an  agreement  among  the  great  powers  for 
a  limitation  and,  if  possible,  a  reduction  in  armaments. 
But  I  do  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  even  in  our 
own  country  the  proposition  does  not  meet  with 
universal  favor,  that  there  is  abroad  in  this  land  a 
chauvanistic  spirit  of  militarism,  and  a  disposition  to 
belittle  the  efforts  of  the  friends  of  peace.  So  intelli- 
gent a  person  as  he  who  now  honors  the  post  of 
secretarj^  of  the  na\y,  is  reported  as  saying  in  a  recent 
address  that  peace  societies  have  never  improved  the 
conditions  under  which  war  is  waged,  and  that  the 
increased  humanity  of  warfare  has  come  about  through 
the  efforts  of  warriors.  He  seems  to  have  forgotten 
that  Grotius,  the  author  of  De  Jure  Belli  et  Pads — 
a  work  Vv-hich  more  than  any  other  has  reformed  the 
excesses  of  war — was  a  divine,  a  jurist,  and  the  greatest 


modern  apostle  of  peace;  also  that  when  it  became 
necessary  to  frame  a  code  for  the  government  of  the 
armies  of  the  United  States  during  the  Civil  War, 
which  would  respond  to  the  highest  humanitarian  senti- 
ments of  the  age,  President  Lincoln  entrusted  the  task, 
not  to  a  warrior,  but  to  a  college  professor  and  a 
sociologist,  Dr.  Lieber. 

We  have  the  following  gloomy  view  of  the  state  of 
the  country  from  Senator  Hale,  the  veteran  states- 
m.an  and  experienced  chairman  of  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Naval  Affairs,  uttered  a  few  weeks  ago: 
"The  trouble  is,  Mr.  President,  that  under  the  incite- 
ment that  the  military  sentiment  is  constantly  pushing 
us  forward  to,  with  every  officer  of  the  Army  and  Navy 
eager  and  anxious  for  a  complication  that  will  bring 
us  into  war,  the  public  attention  is  drifting  away  from 
the  tremendous  problems  that  at  home  are  clutching 
at  the  foundations  of  our  entire  social,  business  and 
political  fabric.'"*  The  War  and  Navy  Departments  are 
constantly  appealing  to  Congress  for  increased  appro- 
priations to  put  them  in  proper  condition  for  war.  The 
lately  retired  Commanding  General  of  the  Army  has 
announced  in  a  public  address  that  we  must  prepare 
ourselves  for  the  next  war,  and  a  prominent  Admiral 
of  the  Navy  goes  so  far  as  to  indicate  the  nation  which 
is  to  be  our  next  antagonist. 

Why  this  constant  harping  on  the  "next  war,"  when 
there  is  no  human  probability  of  having  one?  If  we 
attend  to  our  own  business  and  allow  other  nations  to 
attend  to  theirs,  there  will  be  no  occasion  for  armed 
conflicts  on  our  part.     I  do  not  believe  in  "the  White 

♦Congressional  Record,  Vol  40,  No  25,  p.  iioo,  January  16,  1906. 


man's  burden,"  in  the  sense  indicated  by  the  jingo 
British  poet,  the  author  of  the  phrase.  Our  mission  as 
a  people,  living  in  security  on  this  continent,  separated 
by  wide  oceans  from  any  other  great  military  power, 
is  to  maintain  here  a  model  republican  government  and 
democratic  institutions  which  shall  stand  as  a  beacon 
of  hope  for  the  oppressed  of  all  countries,  to  develop 
our  marvelous  resources,  to  encourage  commerce,  indus- 
tries, and  intelligence,  and  by  our  example  promote 
peace  and  justice  among  mankind. 

Since  the  war  of  1812,  for  nearly  a  century  we  have 
been  free  from  the  aggressions  of  any  power.  Our 
two  foreign  wars  in  that  period  of  time  have  been 
provoked  by  us  with  weak  and  almost  defenseless 
nations,  and  might  with  honor  to  ourselves  have  been 
avoided.  There  never  was  less  danger  than  today  of 
t'ne  American  Union  being  exposed  to  the  unfriendly 
or  hostile  action  of  other  nations.  Why  then  should 
we  enter  into  the  competition  of  the  great  powers  of 
Europe  for  standing  armies  and  formidable  navies?  A 
century  and  a  half  ago,  when  Europe  was  indulging  in 
the  Seven  Years'  War,  Montesquieu,  a  philosopher  a 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ahead  of  his  time,  wrote  of 
the  armaments  of  that  day,  which  he  describes  as  "a. 
new  disease  spread  throughout  Europe  *  *  *  which 
becomes  infectious,  for  as  soon  as  one  state  increases 
its  forces  the  others  at  once  increase  theirs;  so  that 
nothing  is  gained  by  it  except  general  ruin,  *  *  * 
And  this  struggle  of  all  against  all  is  called  peace !" 

How  little  have  the  rulers  of  our  day  profited  by  the 
lessons  of  history.  The  late  secretary  of  the  navy  advo- 
cated the  increase  of  the  American  navy  to  an  equal 
place  with  the  most  formidable  sea  power  of  the  world. 


*bj 


Great  Britain  launches  the  Dreadnauglit,  and  Congress 
is  immediately  besieged  and  implored  to  appropriate  the 
millions  necessary  to  build  a  larger  and  more  destruc- 
tive monster.  France  follows  in  the  same  direction,  and 
Germany  sets  her  builders  at  work  to  eclipse  all  others. 
It  is  high  time  the  peace-loving  people  of  America  should 
call  a  halt  in  our  naval  expenditures.  We  have  the 
authoritative  statement  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations  of  the  present  Congress,  made 
in  the  House  only  a  few  days  ago,  *that  the  appropria- 
tions for  the  navy  by  the  two  last  Congresses  amounted 
to  $388,108,715,  or  more  than  twice  as  much  as  it  would 
cost  to  build  the  Panama  Canal;  that  we  are  expend- 
ing for  the  current  fiscal  year  $375-659,719  for  military 
purposes,  or  sixty-four  per  cent  of  the  total  expenses 
of  the  government;  and  that  as  a  consequence  no  ap- 
propriations can  be  made  for  the  necessary  demands  of 
commerce  in  river  and  harbor  improvements  and  for 
public  buildings,  or  the  people  must  have  new  taxes 
levied  upon  them  to  meet  these  enormous  war  expendi- 
tures. Such  being  the  issue,  the  discussion  of  the  limita- 
tion of  our  armament  is  likely  to  pass  from  the  peace 
societies  to  the  over-burdened  taxpayers.  Our  legis- 
lators who  have  been  deaf  to  the  appeals  of  the  friends 
of  peace  and  arbitration,  may  meet  a  reckoning  at  the 
ballot-box. 

I  would  not  have  you  understand  that  I  am  advo- 
cating peace  at  any  price.  If  you  will  excuse  a  personal 
allusion,  I  will  say  that  I  have  given  nearly  four  of 
the  best  years  of  my  life  to  active  military  service  in 
the    greatest    war    of    modern    times.      I    believe    with 

*Hon,  James  A.  Tawney,  Cong.  Rec.  Vol.  40,  No.  128,  p.  7311,  May  19, 

1906. 


President  Roosevelt,  as  expressed  in  his  message  already 
quoted,  that  there  have  been,  and  may  be  in  the  future, 
righteous  wars,  and  I  would,  as  he  expressed  it,  "fol- 
low the  path  which  leads  towards  righteousness,  even 
though  that  path  leads  to  war."  But  I  also  believe 
that  in  the  present  stage  of  the  world's  progress  most 
wars  may  be  avoided,  and  if  the  powerful  nations  will 
unite  in  compulsory  arbitration,  all  agressive  wars  may 
.be  prevented.  I  also  believe  that  the  measure  next  to, 
if  not  equal  in  importance  with,  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion, to  secure  the  world's  peace  is  the  limitation  and 
diminution  of  the  armaments  of  the  great  powers. 

I  must  not  close  without  making  reference  to  the 
dark  shadow  which  has  passed  over  our  country  since 
we  last  met.  In  the  death  of  John  Hay,  secretary  of 
state,  peace  and  arbitration  lost  one  of  their  stoutest 
and  most  influential  champions.  But  the  inspiration  of 
his  exampe  and  his  words  remain  to  strengthen  our 
faith  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  cause  so  near  his 
heart. 


UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last 
date  stamped  below 


'^^  ^p,'^  '''^ 


5m-6,'41(3644) 


